alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

Certifications of Chief Executive Officer

and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Computer Programs and Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), J. Boyd Douglas, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and David A. Dye, Vice President
 Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 7, 2011



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ J. Boyd Douglas                  
|J. Boyd Douglas                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer



|                            
|----------------------------
|/s/ David A. Dye            
|David A. Dye                
|Vice President - Finance and
|Chief Financial Officer
# C_2020191EN.01001801.xml

| 8.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/18

---

Order of the General Court of 6 March 2020 — Nutravita v EUIPO — Pegaso (nutravita Healthy Mind, Body & Soul.)

(Case T-814/19) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2020/C 191/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nutravita Ltd (Maidenhead, United Kingdom) (represented by: H. Dhondt and J. Cassiman, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Pegaso Srl (Negrar, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 September 2019 (Case R 80/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Pegaso Srl and Nutravita Ltd

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Nutravita Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Nutravita Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER SCRUGGS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No. 3:13-CV-815 JD

v. )

)

CAPT. PAYEN, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Christopher Scruggs, a pro se prisoner, sent the clerk a motion asking to dismiss this case

and waive the filing fee. Scruggs explains that he did not understand that his initial document would

be used to open a new case and that he did not want to file a civil lawsuit. 

In the interests of justice, the motion (DE 9) is GRANTED, this case is DISMISSED AS

INADVERTENTLY OPENED, and the filing fee is WAIVED. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: August 21, 2013 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

Judge

United States District Court
#### SMITH, Appellant, v. POERSCHKE, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November Term, 1897.)

Action by Annie E. Smith against Edward R. Poerschke.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with .$10 costs and disbursements. See 46 N. Y. Supp. 1100.
# C_2019295EN.01007001.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/70

---

Action brought on 3 July 2019 — Panusa v Parliament

(Case T-453/19)

(2019/C 295/91)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Ida Panusa (Latina, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Derrick Antron MUSE, a/k/a D, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-7971.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 7, 2009.

Decided: Jan. 14, 2009.

*817Derrick Antron Muse, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Elizabeth Chase, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Antron Muse seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006). In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); *see United States v. Alvarez,*210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir.2000) (holding that § 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and ten-day appeal period applies). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4); *United States v. Reyes,*759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir.1985).

The district court entered its order granting the motion for reduction of sentence on June 27, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on August 22, 2008.* Because Muse failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*

*

*See Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-23-00408-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 348th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 348-318351-20

Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

ROBERT SCOTT BAUER AND ANGELA BAUER, Appellants

V.

PENN INVESTMENT FUNDS, LLC, JOE PENN, GENE HAMM II, AND THE 

HAMM LAW FIRM, P.C., Appellees
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

On April 9, 2024, we notified appellants that their brief had not been filed as 

the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). We stated that we could 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within ten days, appellants filed 

with the court an appellants’ brief and an accompanying motion reasonably explaining 

the brief’s untimely filing and why an extension was needed. See Tex. R. App. P. 

10.5(b), 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We have received no response.

Because appellants have failed to file a brief even after we afforded an 

opportunity to explain the initial failure, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Appellants must pay all costs of this appeal.

Per Curiam

Delivered: May 9, 2024
----

| (1)   | the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Glenn R. James             |
|--------|--------------------------------|
|   | Name: Glenn R. James           |
|   | Title: Chief Executive Officer |

----
# C_2019270EN.01004101.xml

| 12.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/41

---

Action brought on 21 June 2019 — Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation v EUIPO (Serviceplan)

(Case T-379/19)

(2019/C 270/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation GmbH & Co KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: B. Koch and P. Schmitz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Serviceplan — Application No 15 234 669

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2019 in Case R 1424/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it dismisses the appeal;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

A BATEMENT O RDER

Appellate case name: Ronald Wayne Earls v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 17

- 00312

- CR

Trial court case number: 1466294

Trial court: 232nd District Court of Harris County

The record was due on July 20, 2017. A notice of late record was sent to the court

reporter, Arlene F. Webb, on July 28, 2017. Ms. Webb did not respond and did not file

the reporter’s record. On September 27, 2017, this Court issued an order for Ms. Webb to

file the reporter’s record on or before October 9, 2017. No response or motion for

extension was filed and no reporter’s record was filed.

Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand to the t rial court for a

hearing to be held within 30 days of the date of this order

, to determine if the

reporter’s record of the trial is lost or destroyed and appellant is entitled to a new

trial pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(f). See TEX. R. APP. P.

34.6(f) ; 35.3(c) (allowing appellate courts to enter any order necessary to ensure timely

filing of record)

.

All counsel and appellant shall be present in person at the abatement hearing.

The court coordinator of the trial court shall set a date for said hearing and notify

the parties, including appellant. If appellant is now incarcerated, he may appear by

closed video teleconference. 1

At the hearing, if the trial court determines the record is not lost or destroyed,

it should set a date certain, in no event more than 30 days from the date of this order,

for the record to be filed in this Court. If the record is lost or destroyed, findings of

fact and conclusions of law are to be filed to that effect with this Court within 30 days

of the date of this order

.

The trial court shall have a court reporter, or court recorder, record the hearing

and file the reporter’s record with the Court no later than 30 days from the date of

this order. Additionally, the trial court’s findings and recommendations and anyorders issued pursuant to this hearing shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s

record and filed in this Court no later than 30 days from the date of this order. If the

hearing is conducted by video teleconference, a certified electronic copy of the hearing

shall be filed in this Court no later than 30 days from the date of this order

. 1

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: October 17, 2017

1 Any such teleconference must use a closed

- circuit video teleconferencing system that provides for

a simultaneous compressed full motion video and interactive communication of image and sound between the

trial court, appellant, and any attorneys representing the State or appellant. On request, appellant and his counsel

shall be able to communicate privately without being recorded or heard by the trial court or the attorney

representing the State.
##### 



Certification of the
Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Valley National Gases
Incorporated;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):
    /s/ James P. HartChief Financial Officer
# C_2021462EN.01005903.xml

| 15.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/59

---

Order of the General Court of 21 September 2021 — Daily Mail and General Trust plc and Others v Commission

(Case T-690/19) (1)

(2021/C 462/74)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.

---
# C_2020371EN.01001401.xml

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/14

---

Order of the General Court of 2 September 2020 — ENIL Brussels Office and Others v Commission

(Case T-613/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - ERDF - Operational programme ‘Regions in Growth’ - Priority Axis 5 (Regional social infrastructure) - Grant intended to support the deinstitutionalisation of services for elderly people and people with disabilities - Refusal to suspend the call for proposals at the request of organisations for the defence and representation of people with disabilities - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 371/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: European Network on Independent Living Brussels Office (ENIL Brussels Office) (Brussels, Belgium), Validity Foundation-Mental Disability Advocacy Centre (Budapest, Hungary), Center for Independent Living Association (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by B. Van Vooren and L. Gorywoda, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by S. Pardo Quintillán and J. Hradil, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s letter of 24 May 2019 by which that institution took a position on the applicants’ request to act addressed to the Commission, under Article 265 TFEU, by letter of 26 April 2019 and which was intended, in essence, to require the Commission to suspend the call for proposals for the award of grants under the procedure ‘Support for the deinstitutionalisation of social services for elderly people and people with disabilities’ (BG16RFOP0001-5.002) and all related payments.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is rejected as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is rejected as inadmissible.

| 2. | European Network on Independent Living Brussels Office (ENIL Brussels Office), Validity Foundation-Mental Disability Advocacy Centre and Center for Independent Living Association shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

European Network on Independent Living Brussels Office (ENIL Brussels Office), Validity Foundation-Mental Disability Advocacy Centre and Center for Independent Living Association shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.

---
<PAGE>



                                                                  [EXHIBIT 99.2]


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Valley National Gases Incorporated
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert D. Scherich, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.




                                      /s/ Robert D. Scherich
                                      ---------------------------------------
                                      Robert D. Scherich
                                      Chief Financial Officer
                                      May 15th, 2003




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0172n.06 F iled: Marc h 28, 2008 Case No. 07- 3669 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
BILL P AP P AS; CH RI STIN E P AP P AS, P lai nt iffs- App e lla nt s,

v. STA TE F ARM F IR E & CA SUA LTY COMP ANY, Defendan t-Appellee.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE S OUTHERN DI STR IC T OF OHI O

BEF OR E: NO RRIS, BA TC HELD ER , a nd G IBBO NS, Ci r c uitJudg e s. ALICE M. BATCHEL DER, Circ uit Jud ge. On De c e mbe r 17, 20 00 , App e lla nts ’ h ome

su ff e re d sig nif

ic ant f ir e dama g e . App e lla

nts ha d th e ir

ho me ow ne r’ s in sura

nc e po lic y

thr ou g h St a te Fa rm, w h ic h a c c e p te d c o v e r a g e f o r th e lo s s an d p a id A p p e ll an ts $ 7 4 7 , 7 5 7

. 1 5 f o r r e p a ir s and

renovation of the home, per sonal proper ty , and tempora

ry housing. The rea fter, A

ppellants hired a

n independe nt contrac tor to renovate their house, w ith St ate F arm monitorin g t h e p rog ress of the pr oje c t to de te rm ine Ap pe lla nts ’ n e e d f

or a dd iti on a l li vin g e xpe ns e s. Whil e mon ito ri ngthe pr og re ss of the re no vatio n, State F arm ’s e sti ma tor no tic e d th a t th e ind e pe nd e nt c on tr a c tor wa s n ot p ro pe rl y abating t he smoked, c harr ed wood in Appe llants’ home. State Fa rm, howeve r, did not inform Appellants of the pr oblem. I t is undisputed that making the proper repa irs at the time State Fa rm’s estimator per ceive d the def icien cy would not have be en unduly costly and Appe llants claim that making the re pairs now will cost them $100,000.2

Ap pe lla nts fi le d s uit

in s ta te c ourt a lle g ingtha t State F arm

e xhibi te d b a d f

a ithby fa ili ngto inform them of the contra ctor’s deficient repair work. After removing the ca se to fede ral c ourt on di vers ity g ro un ds , St a te F arm

mov e d f or su mma ry jud g me nt, arguin g tha

t App e lla nts fa ile d a s a matter of la

w to de monstrate their claim for brea ch of the duty of g ood faith. On May

1, 2007, the district court g rante d summary judgme nt for State F arm, findingthat there wer e no genuine issues of mat er i al fact and that ha d Appellants fa iled to establish a prima fa cie c ase that State Far m brea ched its duty

of g ood faith. Appe llants tim ely appea led that dec ision. Afte r ca ref

ully revie wing the re cord, the law, and the parties’ briefs, w e conc lude that the dis tr ic t cou

rt ’s op ini on c or

re c tly se ts out the a

pp lic a ble law an d co rr e c tly a

pp lie s the law to th e fa c ts contained in the r ecor d. The issuanc e of a full written opinion by

this court would serve no useful purpose. Ac cording ly , for the r easons state d in the district court’s opinion, we AF F IRM

.
Case 1:02-cv-04975 Document 29 Filed 07/22/04 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:02-cv-04975 Document 29 Filed 07/22/04 Page 2 of 10
Case 1:02-cv-04975 Document 29 Filed 07/22/04 Page 3 of 10
Case 1:02-cv-04975 Document 29 Filed 07/22/04 Page 4 of 10
Case 1:02-cv-04975 Document 29 Filed 07/22/04 Page 5 of 10
Case 1:02-cv-04975 Document 29 Filed 07/22/04 Page 6 of 10
Case 1:02-cv-04975 Document 29 Filed 07/22/04 Page 7 of 10
Case 1:02-cv-04975 Document 29 Filed 07/22/04 Page 8 of 10
Case 1:02-cv-04975 Document 29 Filed 07/22/04 Page 9 of 10
Case 1:02-cv-04975 Document 29 Filed 07/22/04 Page 10 of 10